4.5 Review

The Diverse Roles of Extracellular Leucine-rich Repeat-containing Receptor-like Proteins in Plants

期刊

CRITICAL REVIEWS IN PLANT SCIENCES
卷 29, 期 5, 页码 285-299

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/07352689.2010.502082

关键词

cell surface receptor; CLV2; LRR; meristem; RLP; receptor-like kinase; RLK

资金

  1. Dutch Graduate School of Experimental Plant Sciences
  2. Research Council for Earth and Life sciences (ALW) of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO)
  3. Centre for BioSystems Genomics (CBSG) that is part of the Netherlands Genomics Initiative / Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research
  4. Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plant cells use various types of cell surface receptor molecules to sense extracellular signals and modulate cell-to-cell communication in many biological processes. Extracellular leucine-rich repeat (eLRR) receptor-like proteins (RLPs) represent an important class of such cell surface receptors. RLPs differ from receptor-like kinases (RLKs), which compose the largest class of cell surface receptors in many plant species, because they lack a cytoplasmic kinase domain. RLPs play roles in both developmental processes and disease resistance. A total of 57 RLP encoding genes has been identified in Arabidopsis. Two of them, CLAVATA2 (CLV2) and Too Many Mouths (TMM) have a function in meristem maintenance and stomatal distribution, respectively, whereas few others act in basal defense against pathogens. Although the function of most RLPs in Arabidopsis remains unclear, considerable progress has been made in understanding RLP functioning and signaling over the years. This review focuses on the function of RLPs in plants. Furthermore, the function of distinct RLP domains and the role of conserved residues important for perception and ligand specificity are discussed. The role of RLP proteins in multimeric complexes to sense biotic and abiotic extracellular signals is also addressed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据